Vineet Kumar v. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mohit Sharan Tomar, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is wife and opposite party is husband. Proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated at the instance of opposite party/ husband is pending in the Family Court, Mainpuri.

3. The instant transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri to Family Court, Mathura.

4. This Court entertained the matter on 8.8.2024 and stayed the further proceeding of the Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The order dated 8.8.2024 is quoted as under: "Heard Sri Sonu Nirmal, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. This transfer application has been filed by the applicant seeking transfer of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap) filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The applicant wife is presently residing in district Mathura. The petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by opposite party on altogether incorrect facts in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri only to harass the applicant. The district Mainpuri is much away from the district Mathura. It is stated in para 15 of the affidavit filed in support of transfer application that applicant is housewife having no source of income. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant being deserted wife of opposite party having no source of income is facing great hardship to attend the court proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri. Matter requires consideration. Issue notice to opposite party. Steps be taken within a week by registered post. List after two months. Until further order, the further proceedings of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap) filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, shall remain stayed."

5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 8.8.2024, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding between the parties are pending at District- Mathura, as such, the proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from District-Mainpuri to District- Mathura. He placed the averment made in paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate that the proceeding under Section- 9 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by opposite party/ husband should be transferred from the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri to Family Court, Mathura.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the instant transfer application should be rejected as the same has been filed in order to harass the opposite party / husband. He further submited that the opposite party is a government servant, as such, it is not possible for him to attend the case at District- Mathura. He further submitted that in any case Court is of the view that proceeding should be transferred from Family Court, Mainpuri to Family Court, Mathura then it can be transferred to district between District- Mainpuri and District-Mathura.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by leaned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending before Family Court, Mainpuri.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under: "11. That the father of applicant is doing labour job, the applicant totally depends on her poor father, there is no any source of income for maintaining her livelihood and attending the case at Family Court Mainpuri from Mathura, in such circumstances she could not attend the Court for contesting the case in Family Court Mainpuri.

12. That the applicant is residing in her parental house at Mathura, the distance between Mathura and Mainpuri is about 200 KM, it is not possible for the applicant to financially and physically undertakes journey between the two stations on every date fixed to attend the Court proceeding at Mainpuri from Mathura.

13. That it is further submitted that in case she is forced to attend the Court proceeding at Mainpuri, her defense is not saved and also she will be threatened.

14. That the opposite party is government employee, he is getting salary more than 50,000/- per month if the Hon'ble Court is transferred the case from Mainpuri to Mathura, the opposite party is able to attend the Court and bear financial liabilities.

15. That applicant is a housewife and has no source of income to go Family Court Mainpuri from Mathura to pursue the aforesaid case.

16. That the applicant is living in her parental house at Mathura with her poor father, she has no source of income to maintain her livelihood as these circumstances she is unable to attend for contesting the aforesaid case at Family Court Mainpuri from Mathura as such applicant is filing this transfer application for transferring the Case No. 985 of 2023 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (Vineet Kumar Versus Smt. Neha Kashyap) from Court of Principal Judge Family Court Mainpuri to Court of Principal Judge Family Court Mathura."

11. The perusal of the paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit as quoted above demonstrate that prayer of the applicant for transfer of proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from District- Mainpuri to District- Mathura is genuine.

12. Apex Court in the case reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap has transferred the proceeding of divorce petition filed by husband to the place where wife reside. Paragraph nos.1 to 7 of the judgement rendered in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which are as under: "1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred.

3. According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult for her mother to accompany the appellant for her travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal cases - one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the third under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions, restitution. and one on pending at the civil Barshi,

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant's mother is only 60 years old and that she has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the respondent-husband.

5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M.J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs."

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri is transferred to Family Court, Mathura. The Family Court, Mainpuri is directed to transmit the record of the case to Family Court, Mathura forthwith. The Family Court, Mathura is directed to decide the aforementioned proceeding of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mohit Sharan Tomar, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is wife and opposite party is husband. Proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated at the instance of opposite party/ husband is pending in the Family Court, Mainpuri.

3. The instant transfer application has been filed with the prayer to transfer Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri to Family Court, Mathura.

4. This Court entertained the matter on 8.8.2024 and stayed the further proceeding of the Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The order dated 8.8.2024 is quoted as under: "Heard Sri Sonu Nirmal, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. This transfer application has been filed by the applicant seeking transfer of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap) filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The applicant wife is presently residing in district Mathura. The petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by opposite party on altogether incorrect facts in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri only to harass the applicant. The district Mainpuri is much away from the district Mathura. It is stated in para 15 of the affidavit filed in support of transfer application that applicant is housewife having no source of income. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant being deserted wife of opposite party having no source of income is facing great hardship to attend the court proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri. Matter requires consideration. Issue notice to opposite party. Steps be taken within a week by registered post. List after two months. Until further order, the further proceedings of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap) filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, shall remain stayed."

5. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 8.8.2024, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding between the parties are pending at District- Mathura, as such, the proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from District-Mainpuri to District- Mathura. He placed the averment made in paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate that the proceeding under Section- 9 of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by opposite party/ husband should be transferred from the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri to Family Court, Mathura.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the instant transfer application should be rejected as the same has been filed in order to harass the opposite party / husband. He further submited that the opposite party is a government servant, as such, it is not possible for him to attend the case at District- Mathura. He further submitted that in any case Court is of the view that proceeding should be transferred from Family Court, Mainpuri to Family Court, Mathura then it can be transferred to district between District- Mainpuri and District-Mathura.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by leaned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending before Family Court, Mainpuri.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application will be relevant which are as under: "11. That the father of applicant is doing labour job, the applicant totally depends on her poor father, there is no any source of income for maintaining her livelihood and attending the case at Family Court Mainpuri from Mathura, in such circumstances she could not attend the Court for contesting the case in Family Court Mainpuri.

12. That the applicant is residing in her parental house at Mathura, the distance between Mathura and Mainpuri is about 200 KM, it is not possible for the applicant to financially and physically undertakes journey between the two stations on every date fixed to attend the Court proceeding at Mainpuri from Mathura.

13. That it is further submitted that in case she is forced to attend the Court proceeding at Mainpuri, her defense is not saved and also she will be threatened.

14. That the opposite party is government employee, he is getting salary more than 50,000/- per month if the Hon'ble Court is transferred the case from Mainpuri to Mathura, the opposite party is able to attend the Court and bear financial liabilities.

15. That applicant is a housewife and has no source of income to go Family Court Mainpuri from Mathura to pursue the aforesaid case.

16. That the applicant is living in her parental house at Mathura with her poor father, she has no source of income to maintain her livelihood as these circumstances she is unable to attend for contesting the aforesaid case at Family Court Mainpuri from Mathura as such applicant is filing this transfer application for transferring the Case No. 985 of 2023 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (Vineet Kumar Versus Smt. Neha Kashyap) from Court of Principal Judge Family Court Mainpuri to Court of Principal Judge Family Court Mathura."

11. The perusal of the paragraph nos.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the affidavit as quoted above demonstrate that prayer of the applicant for transfer of proceeding under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from District- Mainpuri to District- Mathura is genuine.

12. Apex Court in the case reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Sridhar Vishwanath Jagtap has transferred the proceeding of divorce petition filed by husband to the place where wife reside. Paragraph nos.1 to 7 of the judgement rendered in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (supra) will be relevant for perusal, which are as under: "1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred.

3. According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult for her mother to accompany the appellant for her travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal cases - one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the third under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions, restitution. and one on pending at the civil Barshi,

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant's mother is only 60 years old and that she has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the respondent-husband.

5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.

6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M.J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi.

7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs."

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri is transferred to Family Court, Mathura. The Family Court, Mainpuri is directed to transmit the record of the case to Family Court, Mathura forthwith. The Family Court, Mathura is directed to decide the aforementioned proceeding of Case No.985 of 2023 (Vineet Kumar Vs. Smt. Neha Kashyap), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad